or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Circ'ing reduces HPV by 28%
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Circ'ing reduces HPV by 28% - Page 2

post #21 of 42

The following study states that langerhans cells which are produced by the mucosa of the genitalia (inner foreskin) actually kill invading HIV. So by removing the foreskin you are removing the bodies natural defense against HIV infection. 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500357.html

 

I love scientific articles like these. 

post #22 of 42

I'm not sorry, and there was nothing remotely offensive said. I was being light-hearted. I only meant that all parts of a baby are beautiful... boy or girl, but we need to remember that they are not our parts to make decisions about. Nothing needs to be altered in any way because nature made them perfect.  In any case, I went back and edited so as not to derail the discussion.


Edited by tammylsmith - 1/13/11 at 4:00pm
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by tammylsmith View Post


Aw... two already! (my dd is 3 1/2 so I know what you mean!)

 

I do joke, but this makes me think of an interesting point, that I am the keeper and protector of his body for just a tiny, short portion of his life. He is adorable, he is my beautiful baby now (and forever!) but I am not raising a baby. I am raising a man. I will gradually pass off the keys, so to speak, and I don't want to make a decision for a baby boy that actually affects the grown man more. The grown man should have a say! Hope I'm not being to corny. I'm still all mushy over my babies, I guess shy.gif


There is nothing corny about this.  It is such an important fact.  We are not raising children.  We are raising adults.  We are raising an individual, a person who will grow up to be a partner, an employee, an employer, a neighbor, and a community member and so many more things.  I am acutely aware that I am raising someone's future husband or wife and parent.  This fact shapes my parenting greatly.

 

Education and safe behavior are the keys to good sexual health.  It is not my place to alter another's body.

post #24 of 42

It's his penis, so let him read the article and decide on his own if he feels it's "worth it". Then he can at least be knocked out and have pain meds if he chose to cut off a part of his genitals!

post #25 of 42


Actually, it is a reduction of 28%. (38.7-27.8)/38.7 = 28%

 

Not that I am endorsing it!! I am still vehemently against circ'ing for something that is a matter of edication and prevention.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by outlier View Post

Here's a link to the article's summary: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61967-8/fulltext#   I don't think the full text is free.

 

It does not reduce HPV infection by 28%; it appears to reduce HPV infection from 38.7% to 27.8% in this study.  Keep in mind they're dealing with correlations, not causation.  Over a quarter of the women in the experimental group (partner was circ'd) still got HPV--what good did that do them?  I can't comment further on the study's methods without reading the full article, but here's a rough breakdown for you.  If we make the giant assumption that this study is an accurate representation of reality, as a female sexual partner in Uganda your risk of getting HPV is:

 

• 38.7% if your partner is intact

• 27.8% if your partner is circ'd as an adult

[the following are my own approximations]

• low with typical condom use

• close to 0% with perfect condom use

• close to 0% if your partner has his entire penis lopped off

• 0% if you completely abstain from all sexual activity

 

But you're not in Africa, so those first two numbers won't apply to your son's situation anyway.


Edited by vachi73 - 1/17/11 at 4:00pm
post #26 of 42

I think this directly addresses the OP's issue.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKnSWo3hkf4 

 

"So we're talking ... you could have this chopped off or you could wash it.  Your call."

post #27 of 42

I agree with everything else that has been said here. It's your responsibility to teach your child about safe sex, not to alter his body forever before he is old enough to make any decisions for himself.

post #28 of 42

Would you ever tell your son, "Don't use condoms, kid, you don't have a foreskin!"  I doubt it.  But that's what this study suggests.

 

Condoms and safe sex prevent STDs.  Circumcision does not.

 

Why would you assume your baby boy's going to be a, ahem, "social butterfly" anyway?

post #29 of 42



Yes, it only protects against 4 strains, but 2 of those strains are responsible for 75% of all cervical cancer cases, and 2 more are responsibile for 90% of genital warts cases. 

Regardless, circumcising to prevent HPV makes no sense at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mamapigeon View Post

Just from a logical standpoint, wouldn't damaged tissue be more likely to increase risk of spreading disease than decreasing it?  My DH is circumcised and has a ring of scar tissue around his penis that will sometimes get chafed and raw. Open wounds increase the rate of transmission of STDs. Of course, not everyone who gets circumcised is going to have those problems, but it's a risk.

 

As for the vaccine Gardasil, it only protects against 4 of the strains of HPV.  There are over 100.

Safe sex is a better option for reducing STDs.

 

DH and I are expecting a boy in April and we plan on leaving him intact. If he wants to be circumcised when he is older and knows about it, we're fine with that.

 

post #30 of 42

Another way to look at the STD "reduction" argument is to consider that nearly 100% of women who pass on STD's to their partners in the US are uncircumcised.  Yet, no one finds it necessary to talk about routinely slicing off bits of baby girls' vulvas at birth.  Why is it any less ludicrous to argue for RIC of boys in the name of STD reduction?   

post #31 of 42


She's his WIFE?! HELLO?! WOW. No conflict of interest flag here???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2GA View Post

This study is by Maria Wawer, wife of Ronald Gray, who did the Uganda RCT on circ and HIV.  Gray is also listed as a contributor to the piece.  Wawer, you will recall, authored the "study" (also published by The Lancet) where 922 intact HIV+ males were enrolled, one-half were then circumcised, and all were let loose on their HIV- partners.  The purpose was to see if circumcision protected women from HIV transmission.  Funny enough the reverse was found to be true, the circumcised men transmitted HIV more effectively than the intact men. [But the press just said, "
Circumcision does not protect women from HIV"; no article pointed out the truth, "Circumcision increases HIV among women."  But what about the ethics of the study?  Clearly, as someone else has said, this study was "worse than Tuskegee."  It treated black African men and women as lab rats.  Would such a study ever have been conducted on white Americans or Europeans?  Why did The Lancet publish that study?  Why did it publish this one on HPV?  Good questions that need to be answered.

 

And this HPV study is hardly definitive.  An article by Vardas, et al. entitled "External Genital Human Papillomavirus Prevalence and Associated Factors Among Heterosexual Men on 5 Continents" published this month in the Journal of Infectious Diseases [JID 2011:203 (1 January)] found:  "Neither condom usage nor circumcision was associated with HPV DNA prevalence."  But, of course, the circumcised American press failed entirely to pick up on this one, probably because it fails to confirm the pro-circumcision paradigm so important to the circumcised male. 

 

The Vardas study, of course, is confirmed by our experience in the real world here in the U.S.  We have the highest rate of circumcision in the industrialized world outside of Israel; and our STD rates, including HPV, are equal to or greater than those found in European countries where very few to virtually none are circumcised

 

In short, HPV prevention is no reason to circumcise. Nor is the "prevention" of any other STD.

post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by momtoS View Post

Could everyone give me input on this article. I am due soon (possibly with a boy) and we have decided definitely either way.....

 

http://www.torontosun.com/life/healthandfitness/2011/01/07/16808171.html

 

 

"Male circumcision has now been shown to decrease HIV, herpes simplex virus-2, and HPV infections and genital ulcer disease in men, and also HPV infection, trichomoniasis, and bacterial vaginosis and genital ulcer disease in their female partners," Wawer's team wrote.



Condoms and monogamy work better. 

post #33 of 42

Seriously? Cutting part of a penis off because of this 'research'?  I just can't comprehend it.  In some parts of the world they cut off the clitoris. I am sure that also prevents women from spreading disease (since they have little to no sex drive).

post #34 of 42

If I were a boy, and my mom had circ'd me because it can supposedly reduce my chances of getting an STD, it would have been pointless.  I am hyper vigilante about wearing a condom correctly AND the only people I have ever engaged in any sexual act with have all been virgins (and beyond that, had never experienced any sexual act one generally doesn't think takes the v card but can still spread STD's)

 

I've never been exposed to an STD because my partners have never been exposed to STD's.  It would have been pointless because not only was I not the type to have sex willy nilly (not saying those who do are 'bad,' I just don't myself) but I made sure the protection was at max regardless of my partners past partners, or lack there of.

 

Even if circumcision reduces the risk of STD's, I feel it should still be left to the boy to determine if he wants that particular protection via a surgery AFTER learning that he will STILL need a condom because it doesn't ELIMINATE STDs.  He will still be at risk to himself and his partners circumcision or not if he isn't wearing a condom every.single.time.

post #35 of 42

Oh yeah, I'd like to point out, intact men are more likely to wear condoms than their circumcised counter parts.  It's less loss of sensation to them.  Which means they're actually better protected.

post #36 of 42

Have we heard back from the OP?  OP, how's it going?  Did you get your questions answered?

post #37 of 42

Whatever you believe evolution or creation....the foreskin is there for a good reason.  Teach your son to use a condom instead of circ'ing him.  What if that study from a PP turns out to be unreliable in the future like other circ studies?  The danger of HPV has been grossly blown out of proportion.  I had was found to have HPV 20 yrs ago & have had perfect PAPs since then.  Even if I hadn't, I would circ my some b/c of something that might happen.

post #38 of 42

[Missing the point and probably inflammatory, sorry. Redacted to nowhere.]

post #39 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonJelly View Post

Have we heard back from the OP?  OP, how's it going?  Did you get your questions answered?



Yeah OP what's your thinking in all of this?

post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonJelly View Post

These studies were done in Africa on men who were circumcised as adults.


And perhaps received their first instruction in safer sexual practices and their first condoms about the same time?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Circ'ing reduces HPV by 28%